Blog Post

Uncertainty Is Not Our Achilles Heel

Much of the industry-funded opposition to climate change has been aimed at downplaying accumulating scientific evidence and refocusing the public on a polarized debate about whether one "believes." Policy makers and the public are essentially forced to position themselves as believers or "deniers" with both opponents and proponents of climate policy pointing to science to justify their position. The opponents point to scientific uncertainties in order to give the impression that this is a hazy theory and forestall any policy action. And proponents of a policy response play down scientific uncertainty, highlighting the strong consensus around the fact that human-caused climate change is occurring now. I have long been an advocate of immediate action to mitigate climate change, but I think we've done ourselves a disservice by minimizing uncertainty virtually to the point of denying it. While there is strong consensus that human-caused climate change is occurring now and will get worse, there is still remaining uncertainty about how bad things will get.

Uncertainty is not necessarily a weakness, nor is it a barrier to action. It is important information when we shape our policy response. Our understanding of the climate system and future impacts is evolving. As much as we all wish it were otherwise, much of the recent science indicates that we may have significantly underestimated climate sensitivity. Additionally, a number of the climate models upon which policymakers rely assume that there will be some rational reduction of carbon emissions and adoption of clean energy technologies in the first part of the 21st century. Real energy policy in the U.S. is thus far not consistent with those assumptions and that has implications for the projections those models create. After all, it is these same models that governments (including the U.S.) are currently relying upon to fashion adaptation strategies.

Ironically, one of the biggest factors causing uncertainty about climate change impacts is the open question of whether we take reasonable action to limit emissions. Reliable restrictions on future emissions will greatly reduce uncertainty. That is something we should be talking about, not hiding from.

Uncertainty exists, and by denying it we create the appearance of dishonest expediency as new information comes out which refines our understanding. If proponents of mitigating climate change had embraced uncertainty prior to 'Climategate' it would not have been possible for the opposition to foster such a sense of doubt and betrayal.

While that battle is in the past, there is still an opportunity to unmask uncertainty for the red herring it is when it comes to preventing policy action. Opponents say that uncertainty should prevent decision-makers from acting on climate change. This ignores the fact that we are better able to project the future when it comes to climate change than we are with job creation, successful regulation of our financial institutions, anticipation of Al Qaeda's future plans, or predictions about the trajectory of China's blue-water naval capacity. Taking action in the face of uncertainty is essentially what policymakers do every day and our government spends trillions on issues far more uncertain than climate change.

A job change a few years ago showed me that there are additional political advantages to reframing our position to embrace uncertainties. For two years I worked with E3G to convene conversations around approaching climate change as a risk management problem. By its very nature, risk management is about responsible action in the face of uncertainty. In all of our materials framing the workshops and in reports coming out of them, we embraced the fact that there are remaining uncertainties about how climate change will play out. After all, uncertainty doesn't mean we know nothing...simply that we don't know exactly what the future will hold. Once one admits there is uncertainty, then a risk management approach requires a thorough examination of the scientific evidence in order to craft a strategic response. We had no doubt that a thorough examination of the evidence would make a strong case for mitigation and adaptation action now. What did surprise us was the enthusiastic response we received from a number of self-identified 'moderate-to-conservative' policymakers and USG officials who indicated they had wanted to engage in the climate policy debate but were repelled by having to align themselves completely with 'deniers' or with 'the green groups'. They appreciated that an approach based on risk, uncertainty and evaluating the actual scientific evidence allowed them to come into the conversation without having to take sides, and helped them defend their responses to their constituents.

Other Blog Posts

Climate Works Australia is an NGO that generally produces research and reports modeling the implementation of low carbon pathways and how Australia can be successful in the post-carbon economy. However, after a meeting with UNFCCC Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres they realized there needs to be a wider conversation about a post-carbon world within communities and business audiences as well as among policy wonks and academics.

Their answer to this thorny question has been to develop an Australia-wide campaign called Generation Yes, which aims to start a national conversation about how Australia can achieve net zero emissions by 2050. Climate Access’ Amy Huva spoke with ClimateWorks’ Adam Majcher to delve deeper into their engagement and outreach strategy.

The role of faith groups as voices in the climate conversation has been encouraging over the last few years. From the increased profile of Dr. Katharine Hayhoe as a leading trusted evangelical voice on climate to the work of Interfaith Power and Light chapters across the U.S. and the Pope’s moral leadership on climate, the moral religious call for climate action grows stronger.

The smell of wood smoke wafting into my house on a September afternoon should be a cozy and comforting aroma, however combined with the 101 degree heat, I knew the smoke wasn’t coming from a neighbor’s fireplace.

Climate Access is an initiative of The Resource Innovation Group's Social Capital Project. We are grateful to our founding partners, the Stonehouse Standing Circle and the Rutgers Initiative on Climate and Society.